California Senate OKs single-payer health plan

[babylonsister]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/01/28/BAON1BP9AE.DTL

California Senate OKs single-payer health plan

Friday, January 29, 2010


The California Senate on Thursday passed a measure to create a state-run, single-payer health system.

The 22-14 vote was nearly party-line, with one Democrat, Sen. Lou Correa, D-Santa Ana, voting no. It now moves to the Assembly.

The proposal would create the California Health System, which would be funded by pooling all federal and state money California currently spends on health care and a yet-to-be-determined payroll tax. It is anticipated to cost about $200 billion a year. All state residents would be provided health care and people could buy private health care to cover services not offered through the state plan.

The governor has vetoed similar bills in the past.

- Wyatt Buchanan

[Coyote_Bandit]

1. Damn

Apparently California state Dems have the guts that national Dems lack.

Dems in Congress weren't even willing to hear evidence regarding the viability of a single payer system. Never mind the guts to actually think about voting for such a plan. And the President was for single payer before he found it was in his interest to be against single payer. And these sorry bastards want to pretend that the pending clusterfuck healthcare legislation that they've concocted is an informed and well considered plan. Obviously, they are lacking in political skill, leadership or courage. None of which recommends they retain their position.

[treestar]

7. Congress is different from a state legislature

This tired "courage" meme is ridiculous. California is a blue state. The union contains all of the red states.

[Coyote_Bandit]

10. No

Both state legislators and federal legislators are elected to represent the interests of their constituents. I no longer vote for politicians - regardless of the labels they wear - that do not serve to protect and advance my needs and interests. Fuck 'em.

There are no blue states or red states. There is a union composed of lots of purple states - some of which are tinted more blue and some of which are tinted more red.

[treestar]

12. If you don't vote, your political opinion is of no interest to any politician

Why do you blame them?

It is absurd to compare Cal. with the entire union. Of course it contains more liberals. And is the most populous state, or one of the two, and having only two Senators, is therefore underepresented at the federal level. Your purple story does not wash. California is bluer than purple, other states are more on the red side of purple.

[Coyote_Bandit]

13. And voting for the best of two bad candidates

isn't exactly working for me.

If I have learned anything it is to not believe one fucking word spoken by ANY politician. There are only a few things I need to know to decide how to vote:
(1) How does the asshole want to fund the treasury and use its funds;
(2) How did the fucker make his own personal fortune and how has he used it; and
(3) Who has financed his campaign efforts.
A record of prior conduct is always a better indicator of future conduct than any promises to the contrary.

You assume that I don't intend to vote. Perhaps you'd be more accurate to conclude that I prefer challengers to incumbents. And progressive third parties over sold out main parties. I've got no problem with an incumbent who does not protect or advance my interests being removed from office.

There is red even in California. No state in the union is pure red or blue. Not that it matters much. Seems that corporate Amerikkka has bought and trademarked both colors.

[treestar]

14. If you're not one of the voters, you can't complain

And as for the rest of us, you are claiming we are complete dupes - always voting for some sort of fraudster.

And though we often do that (and vote in jerks like Vitter, etc.) we don't always do it.

Obama raised a lot of $$ from ordinary voters. If you insist that a politician is completely beholden to whoever funds him.

And you are admitting no space between funding and being anwerable to the voters. If they think the voters are completely controlled by those who fund the campaign, then you've entered into an area of cynicism that basically says we deserve what we get.

[Coyote_Bandit]

16. Ummmm......From my post #10

"I no longer vote for politicians - regardless of the labels they wear - that do not serve to protect and advance my needs and interests. Fuck 'em."

I guess you missed it. Or didn't understand what I said. I am a voter - and a voter who supports a progressive agenda. I vote for candidates who serve to protect and advance my needs and interests. I don't vote for those who don't. I do recognize that just maybe you have needs and interests other than my own.

If you want to feel like a dupe then that's your choice. It is not something I suggested. You can use whatever criteria you want to choose a candidate to support. Party affiliation. Hairstyle. Stated position on any single issue or group of issues. Whatever. Personally, I think that past conduct is a better indicator of future conduct than any promise to the contrary. My vote. My criteria.

What I did suggest is that political priorities, loyalties and personal character can be judged based on the financial standards and conduct of candidates. That is especially true of incumbents who have a track record.

Perhaps you might find this link instructive. When I look at it I cannot be the least bit surprised that this current Presidential administration was willing to bail out the financial industry. Just look at that list of top contributors.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
The list of top industry contributors is also instructive both with respect to the financial bailouts and the clusterfuck of healthcare reform legislation:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

All of which begs the question of which came first the chicken or the egg. Does the candidate follow the money or vice versa? Probably doesn't matter. It is after all a dynamic relationship. A candidate who takes office and has an opportunity to seek re-election is going to be cognizant of the interests that financed that election effort. It is a denial of basic human nature to suggest otherwise.

As a collective society, we do indeed deserve exactly what we get. Why? Because we've forgotten how to function as a community. We are Dems and Pukes. Red and Blue. Us and Them. We want to win - and preferably dominate. Over who? Over our fucking neighbor who happens to see things a little differently or have different needs or different priorities. What the hell does that accomplish? Nothing much really - other than the reinforcement of deep divisions within our nation. We are more interested in advancing our political ideology than in having a government that actually succeeds in the very practical services that governments afford. We should all be fucking embarrassed.

[PHIMG]

9. You got it.

A reason they wouldn't allow for it is because they don't want to open Pandora's box.

When they say Single Payer isn't politically viable they really mean that the Democratic Party won't be politically viable if they go for single payer. They will lose all the campaign donations they get from the PROFIT Driven elements of our healthcare system (the very elements who are destroying our healthcare system - big pharma, big investor owned hospitals, and the insurance company jackals.)

If Congress had taken a serious look at Single Payer it would immediately exposed the beltway consensus plan for the expensive joke it is.

1. Single Payer saves billions in eliminated waste. $180-300 billion a year. That is money that will not need to be raised in new taxes. Single Payer is the most fiscally conservative reform plan there is.

2. Single Payer gives 100% of Americans a Cadillac plan. Not tied to your employer. No deductibles, no copayments, no guessing what is covered or what is not covered, no need to consult a list of providers to see where you can go. No claim denials. No murder by spreadsheet.

Let's contrast that to the consensus plan.

1. Force every American to buy a defective financial product from big insurance (which are basically Wall Street firms)

2. Add more toothless, hard to enforce regulations for the insurers, increasing complexity and costs.

3. Allow insurers to continue to offer "affordable" Pinto plans that leave you vulnerable to bankruptcy, deny claims, find new ways to screw over small community hospitals, deny care to patients, tie up doctors in red tape, etc.

4. Shovel trillions of tax payer dollar subsidies to the hugely profitable big insurers.

The consensus plan is another bail out for the Financial Sector and it is a SCANDAL that this has been foisted upon the Democratic party by Wall Street and it is a scandal that so many "Good" Democrats just went along with this for the sake of "unity".

So now you see why Baucus had to avoid these comparisons by taking single payer off the table and having the Baucus 8 arrested.

[no limit]

2. How realistic is it that this actually becomes law?

If it did it could create a wave throughout the country.

[SoCalDem]

5. It would work..BUT there would have to be a vigorous ID system in place

companies that now contract with insurance companies would have to be convinced to either drop coverage entirely, or to swap the payments to the SP Plan, and of course instead of premiums, workers would have taxes witheld instead. If that's the case, the amount that employers USED to pay for premiums, should be added IMMEDIATELY, into the paychecks of their employees.

Arnie won;t sign it, but Jerry Brown probably would..

and we would need to follow Oregon's lead, by taxing the richest MORE... If the Richie Rich Californians don;t like it, they can move.. I'm sure they would enjoy living somewhere else.....just not Oregon:)

[azul]

6. I think a majority of Californians want single payer still.

But like most Americans, want stuff but don't want to pay for it now. The gridlock in California is republicans not willing to sign-off on any tax, and the media holding the no-tax hoax weapon.

When the reps tried to close down the state parks they found the limit of cuts. Now they have to find the balance -without more borrowing. They are paralyzed.

[azul]

3. The third strike for the governor?

California is floundering under a more than $20 billions budgetary shortfall and the governor is cutting away all that he can and more. He has no defense this time on vetoing this bill because it will save tons on money, and even he can't be that stupidly hypocritical.

He ran his campaign on opening up the books of California's finance and blowing up the boxes and balancing the budget. He has to put-up now, or else STFU.

[PHIMG]

4. This might have a chance with the next gov.

But unfortunately:

1. Jerry Brown (front runner for Dems.) is soft on single payer. Even a die-hard single payer supporter can be expected to flip flop once in office.

2. Emboldened by the decisioin from the R.A.T.S SCOTUS The entire for-profit health industry (investor owned hospitals, Pharma, and the insurance industry vultures) will drop major cash to defeat any Democrat.

3. Even if it is passes it has to be ratified by state-wide referendum (for the tax increase). Again another opportunity for corporate cash to overwhelm the good guys.

[Kingofalldems]

8. Kick and rec

[slackmaster]

11. Raising taxes on working people in California should be a non-starter

The fools. The mad fools.

[Egalitariat]

15. California will be the next major entity to require a Federal bailout

This would hasten that action considerably.